Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Hume Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: rationality Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:41:47 +0000 Organization: Haphazard Lines: 14 Message-ID: <847flweces.fsf@example.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: sHJLr/ujzlkDnWjCSq+gXw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-No-Archive: Yes X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:wpKKoY147hEo5RLDs2y/CuMenew= Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:154009 Greymaus writes: > There was a gambling theory, which went like this; If you lose, put the same > amount into the next gamble, if you win, double the next bet. The eventual > winner is the one of the players that caan survive the downswings. OK, I > suppose for a group that plays poker at the weekends, but not good against > a bookie that can offset the risk. I thought it was the other way around, double your bet if you lose, to compensate for the loss when you eventually win. Maybe that was a different theory, to always come out a winner. And flawed because the stakes can quickly become massive.